Afterlife….How About For You?

[ding]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know from science that space and time had a beginning. Specifically, red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation and Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations tells us that all matter and energy in the universe once occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of an atom and then began to expand and cool. The the First Law of Thermodynamics (i.e. conservation of energy) tells us that since that time matter and energy has only changed form. Which means that the atoms in our bodies were created from nothing when space and and time were created from nothing.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[Blues Man]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

 

[ding]

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

Again, tell me how you think that has anything to do with the creation of the universe? Can you show me one scientific reference concerning the role dark matter and dark energy performed in the creation of the universe?

The answer is no, you can’t.

Because dark matter and dark energy had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Dark matter and dark matter probably don’t exist.

so why do you keep bringing it up like it means something here? It doesn’t. You can’t even prove it exists. No one can. Which is super odd that no one can find, observe, measure or capture the thing that is supposed to make up the vast majority of the matter and energy in the universe.

So give it a rest. Face the facts. You are a science denier.

We have no idea what dark matter is so tell me how can we even begin to speculate on what its role in the creation of the universe was or wasn't?

And there is something out there we don't understand because according to our understanding of the universe and physics we can see there is something out there, some force, some type of energy, that is physically affecting the motion of galaxies.

And how can I be a science denier when I am using the same knowledge that scientists use?

The fact remains no one knows what dark matter or dark energy are, they might not even be matter or energy but the fat that we cannot explain why the galaxies are moving the way they do unless some other force is added to the equations we use.

Don't forget the Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory based on our observations but we still cannot explain why the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

And FYI the scientists who postulated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating were awarded the Nobel Prize. I suppose you think they are "science deniers" too

So what role did dark matter play in the creation of space and time

How many times do i have to tell you that nobody knows?

If we do not know what Dark matter or dark energy actually are how can we know their origins?

Because it doesn’t exist. It’s a fudge factor.

And has nothing to do with space and time popping into existence 14 billion years ago.

Prove it. If you're so sure it should be no problem.

FYI if we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of how can we say we know with absolute certainty how the universe originated?

Ummm... because of red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

 

[ding]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

 

[Blues Man]

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

Again, tell me how you think that has anything to do with the creation of the universe? Can you show me one scientific reference concerning the role dark matter and dark energy performed in the creation of the universe?

The answer is no, you can’t.

Because dark matter and dark energy had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Dark matter and dark matter probably don’t exist.

so why do you keep bringing it up like it means something here? It doesn’t. You can’t even prove it exists. No one can. Which is super odd that no one can find, observe, measure or capture the thing that is supposed to make up the vast majority of the matter and energy in the universe.

So give it a rest. Face the facts. You are a science denier.

We have no idea what dark matter is so tell me how can we even begin to speculate on what its role in the creation of the universe was or wasn't?

And there is something out there we don't understand because according to our understanding of the universe and physics we can see there is something out there, some force, some type of energy, that is physically affecting the motion of galaxies.

And how can I be a science denier when I am using the same knowledge that scientists use?

The fact remains no one knows what dark matter or dark energy are, they might not even be matter or energy but the fat that we cannot explain why the galaxies are moving the way they do unless some other force is added to the equations we use.

Don't forget the Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory based on our observations but we still cannot explain why the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

And FYI the scientists who postulated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating were awarded the Nobel Prize. I suppose you think they are "science deniers" too

So what role did dark matter play in the creation of space and time

How many times do i have to tell you that nobody knows?

If we do not know what Dark matter or dark energy actually are how can we know their origins?

Because it doesn’t exist. It’s a fudge factor.

And has nothing to do with space and time popping into existence 14 billion years ago.

Prove it. If you're so sure it should be no problem.

FYI if we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of how can we say we know with absolute certainty how the universe originated?

Ummm... because of red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

But none of that explains the addition gravity we see evidence of in the actual movement of galaxies

And all red shift means is that the light seen is from an object moving away at any speed.

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate if we got the theory right then the expansion of the universe would slow over time not speed up as it is doing now.

And how can there be a universal law that applies to the entire universe if 95% of what scientists say make up the universe is unknown?

Sure The "Law" of Thermodynamics works on the 5% of the universe we understand but what about the rest?

Maybe if we could actually come up with a theory that unifies gravity with the other forces and unifies general relativity with quantum theory we might have a clue but we can't seem to do that can we?

 

[ding]

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

Again, tell me how you think that has anything to do with the creation of the universe? Can you show me one scientific reference concerning the role dark matter and dark energy performed in the creation of the universe?

The answer is no, you can’t.

Because dark matter and dark energy had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Dark matter and dark matter probably don’t exist.

so why do you keep bringing it up like it means something here? It doesn’t. You can’t even prove it exists. No one can. Which is super odd that no one can find, observe, measure or capture the thing that is supposed to make up the vast majority of the matter and energy in the universe.

So give it a rest. Face the facts. You are a science denier.

We have no idea what dark matter is so tell me how can we even begin to speculate on what its role in the creation of the universe was or wasn't?

And there is something out there we don't understand because according to our understanding of the universe and physics we can see there is something out there, some force, some type of energy, that is physically affecting the motion of galaxies.

And how can I be a science denier when I am using the same knowledge that scientists use?

The fact remains no one knows what dark matter or dark energy are, they might not even be matter or energy but the fat that we cannot explain why the galaxies are moving the way they do unless some other force is added to the equations we use.

Don't forget the Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory based on our observations but we still cannot explain why the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

And FYI the scientists who postulated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating were awarded the Nobel Prize. I suppose you think they are "science deniers" too

So what role did dark matter play in the creation of space and time

How many times do i have to tell you that nobody knows?

If we do not know what Dark matter or dark energy actually are how can we know their origins?

Because it doesn’t exist. It’s a fudge factor.

And has nothing to do with space and time popping into existence 14 billion years ago.

Prove it. If you're so sure it should be no problem.

FYI if we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of how can we say we know with absolute certainty how the universe originated?

Ummm... because of red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

But none of that explains the addition gravity we see evidence of in the actual movement of galaxies

And all red shift means is that the light seen is from an object moving away at any speed.

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate if we got the theory right then the expansion of the universe would slow over time not speed up as it is doing now.

And how can there be a universal law that applies to the entire universe if 95% of what scientists say make up the universe is unknown?

Sure The "Law" of Thermodynamics works on the 5% of the universe we understand but what about the rest?

Maybe if we could actually come up with a theory that unifies gravity with the other forces and unifies general relativity with quantum theory we might have a clue but we can't seem to do that can we?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

 

[Blues Man]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

 

[ding]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

 

[Blues Man]

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

Again, tell me how you think that has anything to do with the creation of the universe? Can you show me one scientific reference concerning the role dark matter and dark energy performed in the creation of the universe?

The answer is no, you can’t.

Because dark matter and dark energy had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Dark matter and dark matter probably don’t exist.

so why do you keep bringing it up like it means something here? It doesn’t. You can’t even prove it exists. No one can. Which is super odd that no one can find, observe, measure or capture the thing that is supposed to make up the vast majority of the matter and energy in the universe.

So give it a rest. Face the facts. You are a science denier.

We have no idea what dark matter is so tell me how can we even begin to speculate on what its role in the creation of the universe was or wasn't?

And there is something out there we don't understand because according to our understanding of the universe and physics we can see there is something out there, some force, some type of energy, that is physically affecting the motion of galaxies.

And how can I be a science denier when I am using the same knowledge that scientists use?

The fact remains no one knows what dark matter or dark energy are, they might not even be matter or energy but the fat that we cannot explain why the galaxies are moving the way they do unless some other force is added to the equations we use.

Don't forget the Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory based on our observations but we still cannot explain why the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

And FYI the scientists who postulated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating were awarded the Nobel Prize. I suppose you think they are "science deniers" too

So what role did dark matter play in the creation of space and time

How many times do i have to tell you that nobody knows?

If we do not know what Dark matter or dark energy actually are how can we know their origins?

Because it doesn’t exist. It’s a fudge factor.

And has nothing to do with space and time popping into existence 14 billion years ago.

Prove it. If you're so sure it should be no problem.

FYI if we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of how can we say we know with absolute certainty how the universe originated?

Ummm... because of red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

But none of that explains the addition gravity we see evidence of in the actual movement of galaxies

And all red shift means is that the light seen is from an object moving away at any speed.

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate if we got the theory right then the expansion of the universe would slow over time not speed up as it is doing now.

And how can there be a universal law that applies to the entire universe if 95% of what scientists say make up the universe is unknown?

Sure The "Law" of Thermodynamics works on the 5% of the universe we understand but what about the rest?

Maybe if we could actually come up with a theory that unifies gravity with the other forces and unifies general relativity with quantum theory we might have a clue but we can't seem to do that can we?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

All of it based on the 5% of the universe we can observe.

What about the 95% that scientists agree we cannot observe?

You are incapable of thinking that our laws of physics based on our observations may not be able to explain what we do not understand.

We haven't been able to come up with a truly unified field theory until we do we won't be able to truly understand or explain the universe

 

[ding]

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

I'm not gullible like you. Nor do I try to talk about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe just to muddy the waters while denying the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and not be able to recognize that's what the big bang actually means.

 

[Blues Man]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

 

[ding]

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

Again, tell me how you think that has anything to do with the creation of the universe? Can you show me one scientific reference concerning the role dark matter and dark energy performed in the creation of the universe?

The answer is no, you can’t.

Because dark matter and dark energy had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Dark matter and dark matter probably don’t exist.

so why do you keep bringing it up like it means something here? It doesn’t. You can’t even prove it exists. No one can. Which is super odd that no one can find, observe, measure or capture the thing that is supposed to make up the vast majority of the matter and energy in the universe.

So give it a rest. Face the facts. You are a science denier.

We have no idea what dark matter is so tell me how can we even begin to speculate on what its role in the creation of the universe was or wasn't?

And there is something out there we don't understand because according to our understanding of the universe and physics we can see there is something out there, some force, some type of energy, that is physically affecting the motion of galaxies.

And how can I be a science denier when I am using the same knowledge that scientists use?

The fact remains no one knows what dark matter or dark energy are, they might not even be matter or energy but the fat that we cannot explain why the galaxies are moving the way they do unless some other force is added to the equations we use.

Don't forget the Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory based on our observations but we still cannot explain why the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

And FYI the scientists who postulated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating were awarded the Nobel Prize. I suppose you think they are "science deniers" too

So what role did dark matter play in the creation of space and time

How many times do i have to tell you that nobody knows?

If we do not know what Dark matter or dark energy actually are how can we know their origins?

Because it doesn’t exist. It’s a fudge factor.

And has nothing to do with space and time popping into existence 14 billion years ago.

Prove it. If you're so sure it should be no problem.

FYI if we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of how can we say we know with absolute certainty how the universe originated?

Ummm... because of red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

But none of that explains the addition gravity we see evidence of in the actual movement of galaxies

And all red shift means is that the light seen is from an object moving away at any speed.

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate if we got the theory right then the expansion of the universe would slow over time not speed up as it is doing now.

And how can there be a universal law that applies to the entire universe if 95% of what scientists say make up the universe is unknown?

Sure The "Law" of Thermodynamics works on the 5% of the universe we understand but what about the rest?

Maybe if we could actually come up with a theory that unifies gravity with the other forces and unifies general relativity with quantum theory we might have a clue but we can't seem to do that can we?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

All of it based on the 5% of the universe we can observe.

What about the 95% that scientists agree we cannot observe?

You are incapable of thinking that our laws of physics based on our observations may not be able to explain what we do not understand.

We haven't been able to come up with a truly unified field theory until we do we won't be able to truly understand or explain the universe

I don't believe in man made global warming either just because 95% of the scientists tell me I must.

 

[Blues Man]

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

I'm not gullible like you. Nor do I try to talk about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe just to muddy the waters while denying the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and not be able to recognize that's what the big bang actually means.

So things that we know are part of the universe but don't understand weren't created when the rest of the universe was created?

 

[Blues Man]

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

Again, tell me how you think that has anything to do with the creation of the universe? Can you show me one scientific reference concerning the role dark matter and dark energy performed in the creation of the universe?

The answer is no, you can’t.

Because dark matter and dark energy had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Dark matter and dark matter probably don’t exist.

so why do you keep bringing it up like it means something here? It doesn’t. You can’t even prove it exists. No one can. Which is super odd that no one can find, observe, measure or capture the thing that is supposed to make up the vast majority of the matter and energy in the universe.

So give it a rest. Face the facts. You are a science denier.

We have no idea what dark matter is so tell me how can we even begin to speculate on what its role in the creation of the universe was or wasn't?

And there is something out there we don't understand because according to our understanding of the universe and physics we can see there is something out there, some force, some type of energy, that is physically affecting the motion of galaxies.

And how can I be a science denier when I am using the same knowledge that scientists use?

The fact remains no one knows what dark matter or dark energy are, they might not even be matter or energy but the fat that we cannot explain why the galaxies are moving the way they do unless some other force is added to the equations we use.

Don't forget the Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory based on our observations but we still cannot explain why the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

And FYI the scientists who postulated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating were awarded the Nobel Prize. I suppose you think they are "science deniers" too

So what role did dark matter play in the creation of space and time

How many times do i have to tell you that nobody knows?

If we do not know what Dark matter or dark energy actually are how can we know their origins?

Because it doesn’t exist. It’s a fudge factor.

And has nothing to do with space and time popping into existence 14 billion years ago.

Prove it. If you're so sure it should be no problem.

FYI if we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of how can we say we know with absolute certainty how the universe originated?

Ummm... because of red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

But none of that explains the addition gravity we see evidence of in the actual movement of galaxies

And all red shift means is that the light seen is from an object moving away at any speed.

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate if we got the theory right then the expansion of the universe would slow over time not speed up as it is doing now.

And how can there be a universal law that applies to the entire universe if 95% of what scientists say make up the universe is unknown?

Sure The "Law" of Thermodynamics works on the 5% of the universe we understand but what about the rest?

Maybe if we could actually come up with a theory that unifies gravity with the other forces and unifies general relativity with quantum theory we might have a clue but we can't seem to do that can we?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

All of it based on the 5% of the universe we can observe.

What about the 95% that scientists agree we cannot observe?

You are incapable of thinking that our laws of physics based on our observations may not be able to explain what we do not understand.

We haven't been able to come up with a truly unified field theory until we do we won't be able to truly understand or explain the universe

I don't believe in man made global warming either just because 95% of the scientists tell me I must.

Who is the science denier now?

 

[ding]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

 

[ding]

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

I'm not gullible like you. Nor do I try to talk about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe just to muddy the waters while denying the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and not be able to recognize that's what the big bang actually means.

So things that we know are part of the universe but don't understand weren't created when the rest of the universe was created?

The universe began with nearly equal amounts of anti-matter and matter. No dark matter or dark energy required. Do you want me to explain it to you?

 

[ding]

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

Again, tell me how you think that has anything to do with the creation of the universe? Can you show me one scientific reference concerning the role dark matter and dark energy performed in the creation of the universe?

The answer is no, you can’t.

Because dark matter and dark energy had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Dark matter and dark matter probably don’t exist.

so why do you keep bringing it up like it means something here? It doesn’t. You can’t even prove it exists. No one can. Which is super odd that no one can find, observe, measure or capture the thing that is supposed to make up the vast majority of the matter and energy in the universe.

So give it a rest. Face the facts. You are a science denier.

We have no idea what dark matter is so tell me how can we even begin to speculate on what its role in the creation of the universe was or wasn't?

And there is something out there we don't understand because according to our understanding of the universe and physics we can see there is something out there, some force, some type of energy, that is physically affecting the motion of galaxies.

And how can I be a science denier when I am using the same knowledge that scientists use?

The fact remains no one knows what dark matter or dark energy are, they might not even be matter or energy but the fat that we cannot explain why the galaxies are moving the way they do unless some other force is added to the equations we use.

Don't forget the Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory based on our observations but we still cannot explain why the universe is expanding at an increasing rate.

And FYI the scientists who postulated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating were awarded the Nobel Prize. I suppose you think they are "science deniers" too

So what role did dark matter play in the creation of space and time

How many times do i have to tell you that nobody knows?

If we do not know what Dark matter or dark energy actually are how can we know their origins?

Because it doesn’t exist. It’s a fudge factor.

And has nothing to do with space and time popping into existence 14 billion years ago.

Prove it. If you're so sure it should be no problem.

FYI if we don't know what 95% of the universe is made of how can we say we know with absolute certainty how the universe originated?

Ummm... because of red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Inflation Theory.

But none of that explains the addition gravity we see evidence of in the actual movement of galaxies

And all red shift means is that the light seen is from an object moving away at any speed.

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate if we got the theory right then the expansion of the universe would slow over time not speed up as it is doing now.

And how can there be a universal law that applies to the entire universe if 95% of what scientists say make up the universe is unknown?

Sure The "Law" of Thermodynamics works on the 5% of the universe we understand but what about the rest?

Maybe if we could actually come up with a theory that unifies gravity with the other forces and unifies general relativity with quantum theory we might have a clue but we can't seem to do that can we?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

All of it based on the 5% of the universe we can observe.

What about the 95% that scientists agree we cannot observe?

You are incapable of thinking that our laws of physics based on our observations may not be able to explain what we do not understand.

We haven't been able to come up with a truly unified field theory until we do we won't be able to truly understand or explain the universe

I don't believe in man made global warming either just because 95% of the scientists tell me I must.

Who is the science denier now?

You. Would you like to debate me in the bull ring on AGW?

 

[Blues Man]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

 

[ding]

False dichotomy
The fact of the matter is we really don't know how the universe came to be.

I don't think we will ever know because of the limitations of our brains and therefore our intellects.

You call your god some extra-dimiensional force and maybe such a force exists, maybe it doesn't but we will never know because we are incapable of perceiving such things.

But I don't fool myself into thinking that what you call your god is an actual benevolent, all knowing entity that snapped his fingers and created the universe.

How can it be a false dichotomy when the premise is it is either one thing or another thing. That is can only be one of two things and that the evaluation should evaluate both.

You are the one with the false dichotomy by arguing it can only be one thing.

You didn't even read it, did you?

You think the premise is one or the other.

I have never stated how the universe came to be because , If you actually read my posts, I have made it clear that we do not know the origins of the universe and furthermore we may never know because we are incapable of processing the data required to understand the universe.

Hence the origin of the universe quite possible and I'll say quite probably involves more that the 2 forces you are limiting the discussion to.

I am more than willing to entertain a third option that doesn’t reduce into the two mentioned.

So do you have a third opinion you want to share because these are the only two options I could come up with.

Because you saying you think there are more options without actually being able to offer one example seems disingenuous.

What about the fact that I said we may never know because we are incapable of knowing due to the limitations of our intellect.
'
If I were to guess and put forth with all surety what forces were responsible for the origin of the universe I would be doing exactly what you are doing when you say a god did it.

I don't make up answers to things I do not or cannot comprehend.

What makes you so certain you understand the 95% of the universe that is a mystery to every physicist, chemist, astronomer etc who has devoted years of study on the universe?

I will not make a definitive statement on something based on 5% understanding

What about it? How exactly are we limited from learning? You seem to be confusing knowledge with learning. What exactly is our limitation on learning? The answer is knowledge. But as we know more we learn more and as we know more we learn more. Your problem is that you can’t even seem to learn what we already know. Which is that the universe began ~14 billion years ago. It was literally created from nothing. It’s the implication from the SLoT. There’s no getting around it. Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

Wake up. Learn something lest your learning be limited.

How many times do I have to give the example of a dog being incapable of learning basic algebra?

We may very well never understand the processes that enabled the creation of the universe because like a dog being incapable of processing the concepts of algebra we very well may not be able to process the concepts needed to understand the origins of the universe.

I think your analogy is actually quite good for describing your inability to recognize learning has no limitations.

You have yet to prove we have no limitations on our intellect.

LEt's do this from a mathematical standpoint.

if a being lives in a 2 dimensional world he would be incapable seeing a 3 dimensional object except for a 2 dimensional cross section of that object. If that 3 dimensional object entered his 2 dimensional world on a third axis it would have appeared to the 2 dimensional being as if by magic.

So you see our resident of the 2 dimensional world has physical limitations on what it can perceive and understand.

You keep changing my words. There is no limit or restriction on our ability to learn. Intellect is a combination of learning and knowledge. There is no limit to what we can learn.

Except for you. You haven’t learned that the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

And you don't seem to realize that that surety you have is based on an understanding of a mere 5% of the matter and energy in the universe.

The truth of the matter is we really don't know how the universe began all we have is a theory that best explains what we are able to observe.

What about the parts of the universe we cannot observe ?

What's 96 Percent of the Universe Made Of? Astronomers Don't Know

Almost all of the universe — 96 percent — is invisible stuff called dark matter and dark energy. The new book "The 4 Percent Universe" by Richard Panek describes how this bizarre picture came to be.

www.space.com

You mean the 5% we can see, observe and measure as opposed to the 95% that we can see, observe, measure or prove exists?

We know something else exists because the universe moves in ways we can't explain if we only use what we can see observe and measure.

So how do you explain it?

Some mystical spirit that is making galaxies accelerate away from each other faster than what can be accounted for?

No one said anything about God moving the galaxies. Just that God willed the material world into existence. You are the one trying to introduce magical shit into the universe because you can't handle accepting that the universe was created from nothing despite this being the scientific explanation for it. Not to mention that no one except you has ever brought up dark matter or dark energy as a cause for the creation of the universe.

I think it is hilarious that you are a big bang denier.

I didn't say god did I?

I have never denied the big bang.

I have said countless times that it is the best theory we have that explains our observations.

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

Of course you are a big bang denier. You deny the universe had a beginning.

Where did i ever say that

Please quote me and by that I mean find the exact post where I said the universe had no beginning

That's what you are doing.

Let's test it, OK.

Did the universe pop into existence 14 billion years ago and then begin to expand and cool? Yes or no?

As far as we can tell yes. How many times do i have to tell you the Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain our observations?

and I never said differently. All I ever said is that there is most certainly more to the story than we know

The fact that you cannot quote the post where I said that the universe had no beginning is proof that you are lying about what I said

Great and where did the energy come from to create the universe?

 

[Blues Man]

Unlike you I accept that every scientist says we cannot observe 95% of the universe and knowing that I have to say the Big bang while it is the best theory we can come up with might not be the whole picture.

I'm not gullible like you. Nor do I try to talk about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of the universe just to muddy the waters while denying the universe literally popped into existence 14 billion years ago and not be able to recognize that's what the big bang actually means.

So things that we know are part of the universe but don't understand weren't created when the rest of the universe was created?

The universe began with nearly equal amounts of anti-matter and matter. No dark matter or dark energy required. Do you want me to explain it to you?

And yet scientists cannot account for the movement of the universe without admitting there is more there than we can see.

So tell me where did the 95% of the universe that scientists know exists come from in not the same event that spawned the 5% of the universe we actually understand?